Information Officer

[JohnKachenmeister]

One of the first things a PAO in the military does is clarify his release authority.  If I were the IO on a missiing person search I would coordinate all released through the supported agency PAO.

This is DINFOS 101.

Isin't that also a requirement for CAP PAO's?  

If it is not, shame on CAP.

Tags - MIKE

Should be.

That's why its DINFOS 101.  This is basic stuff.

IF CAP is working with other agencies, the IO/PAO (The military abandoned "IO" in favor of "PAO" to better describe the nature of the job, which is more than simply providing information, and to avoid confusion with "Information Management."

[RiverAux]

One of the isssues that is starting to arise is how to best use an IO on one of these distributed SAREXs or on a mission where there is an ICP quite a distance away from where our planes are landing, getting fueled, etc.  The media is more likely to show up where the planes are, which is close to where the search area is.  Meanwhile, your IO is probably back at the ICP leaving no one to really deal with the on-scene media. 

[DNall]

Nothing wrong with an IO staff reporting through IO to IC. You go where the work is. Honestly, with solid media coverage you're going to want to be doing formal press briefings on a regular basis, every couple hours would be nice. That's going to be your primary at the ICP. If you have media hanging around remote locations then you should have someone out there to take questions off camera, read prepared statements, and pass requests thru the IO. A media LO basically.

Far as distributed SaRExs. I don't know how others are running those, but it's really just an umbrella for several small virtually seperate SaRExs. We have a full up staff at each regional location. You get more staff training in that way. We may also remotely dispatch from sub-locations that are doing other training on the ground.

[RiverAux]

Dnall, you are very correct about how things should be run in an ideal world, but the fact is that we don't have enough IOs to operate that way in the real world. 

The obvious answer is to train more Information Officers, but it isn't that easy.  This is a real different skill than that of the majority of folks recruited into CAP bring to the table.  Its one thing to train a pilot to be an AOBD or a GTL into a GBD, but this is a different story. 

Sure, there are some PAOs out there in the squadrons that could become IOs, but not all of them are interested in it whether because they're not ES-oriented in general or perhaps they're not interested in the stress of serving as an IO on a high-profile mission. 

The shocking thing is that this issue isn't actually confined to the smaller states.  I have heard that even Texas is quite short of IOs. 

[floridacyclist]

I think one of the first things to do is to get what IO-interested people you can into the FEMA intro PIO course. It is usually offered by the state EMA and is two days long. Just having a little formal training under the belt can help with confidence a lot when it is time to step up.

[DNall]

Dnall, you are very correct about how things should be run in an ideal world, but the fact is that we don't have enough IOs to operate that way in the real world. 

The obvious answer is to train more Information Officers, but it isn't that easy.  This is a real different skill than that of the majority of folks recruited into CAP bring to the table.  Its one thing to train a pilot to be an AOBD or a GTL into a GBD, but this is a different story. 

Sure, there are some PAOs out there in the squadrons that could become IOs, but not all of them are interested in it whether because they're not ES-oriented in general or perhaps they're not interested in the stress of serving as an IO on a high-profile mission. 

The shocking thing is that this issue isn't actually confined to the smaller states.  I have heard that even Texas is quite short of IOs. 

Two things on that point.

One, the guy out at the remote location is not the IO. He's an LO. He's just accepting questions from media & passing them to the IO for answers, providing off-camera background info, and maybe reading prepared statements from the IO. That is not all that challenging.

Second, this is one of the narrow areas where I do feel ES should be tied to a specialty track progression like it is in Comm. All those Sq PAOs could be required to meet the IO standards to gate thru their tech/sr/master ratings. That doesn't mean they have to stay qual'd or have to do much in the way of ES, but it gives them some ES familiarization, which they need as a unit PAO anyway, and it should increase the pool from which we can draw.

[RiverAux]

One, the guy out at the remote location is not the IO. He's an LO. He's just accepting questions from media & passing them to the IO for answers, providing off-camera background info, and maybe reading prepared statements from the IO. That is not all that challenging.

Actually he is not, or would not in any mission I run.  You can set up a more in-depth system for handling IO duties during a major mission and could employ multiple Information Officers at remote locations.  This is covered in the Joint Information Center concept in various NIMs documents. 

The media will not want to really talk to a guy who is just passing on questions and waiting for answers.  That just won't work.  They're not going to want to submit a list of prepared questions for transmittal to mission base and then have Lt. Snuffy read those answers to them.  They just don't work that way. 

Second, this is one of the narrow areas where I do feel ES should be tied to a specialty track progression like it is in Comm. All those Sq PAOs could be required to meet the IO standards to gate thru their tech/sr/master ratings. That doesn't mean they have to stay qual'd or have to do much in the way of ES, but it gives them some ES familiarization, which they need as a unit PAO anyway, and it should increase the pool from which we can draw.

Well, I've already said I'm for making tech rating a requirement for IO, but I don't really think we want to make all our PAOs into Information Officers.  Frankly, some just won't be able to cut it working in that environment.  They may be fine sending out press releases about cadet promotions and occassionally escorting a media person around at some local event and talking about CAP in general, but being an IO is a little bit different.  A lot more high pressure situation. 

[Tubacap]

Dealing with the pressure aspect is why I think that going to the advanced PIO course would be outstanding.  Or for that matter taking any sort of risk communication course.

[SARMedTech]

Since we are working toward being NIMS compliant: a LO or Liaison Officer is the bridge between agencies to help assure some semblance of interoperability. the IO or PIO gathers and disseminates information. A reporter asks a question, the IO (PIO) gets the information and relates it as prudently as possible.

[DesertFlyer]

5.) Stop playing the 'add more Fam-Prep' game in this SQTR (and others). As a Tech rated PAO (need 2 IO missions for my Senior Level), I have been frustrated somewhat by opening the SQTR up for IO, progressing thru it to about 80%, and then finding that MSA was inserted in e-services under FAM-Prep. So, I knock out MSA over a couple of months, and BAM-- now we have the NIMS IS 300-400 issue inserted. While I hold 100,200,700,and 800 completion..the availability locally of the in-residence courses conflict with my paying job 100% of the time. So, here we go again. And frankly, with the 300 / 400 completion complete, I'm not sure there would be a need for the multi-layers of IO as suggested in Tubacap's #3.

I agree.  My paying job is as a PIO. In that function for the past 15 years, I've logged a lot of time in front of TV cameras being grilled by the media.  Before that, I was a newspaper reporter and editor.  Naturally, I thought I could contribute to CAP pretty quickly as an IO, and started cranking out the NIMS courses.  Now there's MSA.  And if 300/400 are required, I haven't seen those offered anywhere near here. There may be a need for IOs, but it's going to be a long time before I can help fill that need, even though I've been doing that kind of work for decades.

[SARMedTech]

5.) Stop playing the 'add more Fam-Prep' game in this SQTR (and others). As a Tech rated PAO (need 2 IO missions for my Senior Level), I have been frustrated somewhat by opening the SQTR up for IO, progressing thru it to about 80%, and then finding that MSA was inserted in e-services under FAM-Prep. So, I knock out MSA over a couple of months, and BAM-- now we have the NIMS IS 300-400 issue inserted. While I hold 100,200,700,and 800 completion..the availability locally of the in-residence courses conflict with my paying job 100% of the time. So, here we go again. And frankly, with the 300 / 400 completion complete, I'm not sure there would be a need for the multi-layers of IO as suggested in Tubacap's #3.

I agree.  My paying job is as a PIO. In that function for the past 15 years, I've logged a lot of time in front of TV cameras being grilled by the media.  Before that, I was a newspaper reporter and editor.  Naturally, I thought I could contribute to CAP pretty quickly as an IO, and started cranking out the NIMS courses.  Now there's MSA.  And if 300/400 are required, I haven't seen those offered anywhere near here. There may be a need for IOs, but it's going to be a long time before I can help fill that need, even though I've been doing that kind of work for decades.

There lots of emergeny services courses offered up in Albuquerque and I am sure you could find ICS 300.

[DNall]

One, the guy out at the remote location is not the IO. He's an LO. He's just accepting questions from media & passing them to the IO for answers, providing off-camera background info, and maybe reading prepared statements from the IO. That is not all that challenging.

Actually he is not, or would not in any mission I run.  You can set up a more in-depth system for handling IO duties during a major mission and could employ multiple Information Officers at remote locations.  This is covered in the Joint Information Center concept in various NIMs documents.

Dnall, you are very correct about how things should be run in an ideal world, but the fact is that we don't have enough IOs to operate that way in the real world.

Okay great, now juxtapose those two statements for me...

The media will not want to really talk to a guy who is just passing on questions and waiting for answers.  That just won't work.  They're not going to want to submit a list of prepared questions for transmittal to mission base and then have Lt. Snuffy read those answers to them.  They just don't work that way.

Granted. What they will do it talk to the on-scene media liaison. That person can readily say they aren't authorized to release any information at this time. Regular briefings are happening at the ICP by the IO, but if they have any issues here at this remote location then I'll be happy to help you with those. He can still do most of the IO position, but the central IO is still the decision maker.

Second, this is one of the narrow areas where I do feel ES should be tied to a specialty track progression like it is in Comm. All those Sq PAOs could be required to meet the IO standards to gate thru their tech/sr/master ratings. That doesn't mean they have to stay qual'd or have to do much in the way of ES, but it gives them some ES familiarization, which they need as a unit PAO anyway, and it should increase the pool from which we can draw.

Well, I've already said I'm for making tech rating a requirement for IO, but I don't really think we want to make all our PAOs into Information Officers.  Frankly, some just won't be able to cut it working in that environment.  They may be fine sending out press releases about cadet promotions and occassionally escorting a media person around at some local event and talking about CAP in general, but being an IO is a little bit different.  A lot more high pressure situation. 

Absolutely it's a higher pressure situation. Maybe something you'd equate to a Sr Rating in Public Affairs rather than the ordinary tech rating?

[Duke Dillio]

I have some difficulty accepting that any rating as a PAO would be extremely helpful to a mission IO.  The first point that I would make is that they are two totally different spectrums.  I would expect a squadron PAO to be looking for things to get into the local newspaper, TV, or radio.  I would want them to disseminate all kinds of information on CAP, its' mission, and where to contact us.  On the other hand, I wouldn't want a mission IO just spreading all kinds of information.  It is good that they work with the local media to get the "true story" out however there are some types of information that the IO needs to keep "hidden" until the right moment. 

Sometimes, the media just doesn't care about the impact of information.  They just want to get their story out to boost their ratings.  There have been instances in the past where reporters, armed with scanners, showed up at crash sites and started taking pictures of bodies and reporting fatalities on their broadcasts, much to the horror of the families who hadn't been notified.  There was a plane crash, which CAP was not involved with, near Sacramento last Thanksgiving in which the reporter and the camera were showing live pictures of the upturned airplane, reporting that two people had been killed with the tail number visible to all.

This is most probably why the wings I have been in have switched to code words or use of cell phones to report finds.  The information officer gets this information and, through the IC, relays it to the media if they ask.  If you were to take the PAO approach to being an IO, I could see bad things being put out.  I understand that there is good information in the tech and senior PAO specialty tracks however I think that it is easier to train someone as an IO correctly from scratch then to have to untrain them and then retrain them.  It just seems like there is a different theology there to me between the two jobs.

OK, flame me now.....

[Smithsonia]

Crisis Management in the Media/PR field looks like IO and PAO in the CAP world. Think of it as a hostage negotiations. The local on-camera guy is the hostage. The background mysterious "higher authority" is the negotiator... the media (while not the bad guys in any real sense... ARE analogous to the hostage takers.) PAOs are there to be nice, shake hands, kiss babies, look for stories to push, be the good cop, etc. IOs are fierce resources waging war inside the hot crucible of the deadline driven always multiple agenda-ridden battleground of the time pressured press conference. They are the negotiator the arbitor of information. What to say and when to say it.
It's no place to learn to swim... except as a background player.  

4 in 5 PAOs will NOT make good IOs until they've seen the messy battle in slow-mo while serving as an assistant. You can't train for war when no one around you has ever been to war, ever seen a war, or knows what a war looks like. Something the Swiss Army may want to keep in mind, by the way. Anyway, the best way to teach crisis managment is to go watch it up close, as such... ALL THOSE who wish to be an IO should take sub-assignments for/with Homeland Security. Work the war room under a pro... or in some cases watch what NOT to do by serving with an overwhelmed or incompotent pro. GO sit at a Wildland Fire HQ for a few days, be a resource for a FEMA manager at a tornado site. Do more than check boxes in the CAP manual.

We need to get better at everything. We need to get more professional. It's not just for our own good. Eventually it will be for our own survival. I advocate that all wanna-bee IOs and PAOs get with their WING's Homeland Security Liaison and start setting up a program of internship and intergration... NOW!!! Bring it up at your next Wing Staff meeting and implement it the following week.

With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[DNall]

Let me explain very clearly, I didn't say wave a magic wand & all PAOs become IOs. I said IO should be one of the requirements spread over the PAO specialty track, possibly at the Sr rating level.

I fundamentally disagree that they are different things. They're as different as IC on a practice mission to IC on a real mission. As a PAO you certainly are looking to push the story, where as an IO the story is pushing you to an extent. Controlling the story & delivering it thru the media is the same.

Even when I've seen good IOs they many times are just playing defense, trying to give the media enough information to leave ours staff alone. In a lot of ways they do need to be thinking more like PAOs.

And just so you know... the mil calls it PAO, NIMS calls it IO, it's the same thing.

[SARMedTech]

Practically speaking, under NIMS, a PAO and an IO are no where near the same job. Public affairs is a public relations job. IO is getting relevant and cleared information to outlets that have been cleared by the IC.

[DNall]

Practically speaking, under NIMS, a PAO and an IO are no where near the same job. Public affairs is a public relations job. IO is getting relevant and cleared information to outlets that have been cleared by the IC.

PAO is absolutely moving relevant cleared information to outlets. And IO is absolutely presenting CAP in the best light, keeping the attention of media, promoting CAP thru action.

They are different aspects of the same person. I understand the role of the PAO outside operations is a bit different than the IO during missions, but there is more similar about the two aspects than most other positions. I'm saying:

1) IO's don't have to be PAOs, but PAOs at some point in the their specialty track should also be trained as an IO. I mean bldg falls in kills cadet. Here's my PAO. And..

2) From the other side, I need more trained IOs, and I need IOs to be less defensive with a dash more PAO in there. Most of our people get hosed by the media cause they aren't controlling the situation, and certainly they are missing massive opportunities to do things right. It's important in a crisis to promote an org so as to create public confidence. Any follow on benefit is bonus.

[RiverAux]

Dnall, in the situation where an ICP is far from the actual mission site, there should be an IO at the ICP and an Assist. IO at the mission site (or nearest location where CAP members are concentrated).  The Asst. would be able to handle just about all questions from the media in a responsible way, but of course would do so in the context of what information is cleared for release by the IC through the IO. 

A liasion officer would be a very poor choice since they may or may not be a person you can trust to go on camera to even answer basic questions about CAP and the mission. 

PAO is basically the minor leagues compared to being an IO on a real mission, but to be a good IO you should also probably be a qualified PAO since being in that position has equipped you with the tools, experience, and contacts to become a good IO.   The reverse is not the case and I would not be at all in favor of having IO be a part of the PA specialty track. 

I think a tech rating in PAO is enough to qualify you to begin training as an IO.  You will have spent at least a year doing PAO duties and have gone through what PAO training CAP has.  The higher ratings basically just ask for more time in a PAO staff position and don't have much that would help you out more. 

[DNall]

River, you didn't fix the part where you contradict yourself...

One, the guy out at the remote location is not the IO. He's an LO. He's just accepting questions from media & passing them to the IO for answers, providing off-camera background info, and maybe reading prepared statements from the IO. That is not all that challenging.

Actually he is not, or would not in any mission I run.  You can set up a more in-depth system for handling IO duties during a major mission and could employ multiple Information Officers at remote locations.  This is covered in the Joint Information Center concept in various NIMs documents.

Dnall, you are very correct about how things should be run in an ideal world, but the fact is that we don't have enough IOs to operate that way in the real world.

Okay great, now juxtapose those two statements for me...

I agree that the remote location media liaison should be an IO, or at least an IO trainee that's trusted by the ICP staff. I didn't say it'd be any random LO, just that they'd be media liaison for that site & I belive I explained prety well what they'd be doing, which is a dang sight better than letting aircrews & GTs be addressed by the media & hope they aren't stupid.

I agree also that PAO is the minor leagues compared to IO. I didn't at any point say get rid of IO training cause the PAO specialty track will suffice. I believe I very clearly added that IO be added as a requirement for the PAO senior rating. In what way is a person with both a Sr PAO rating AND IO on their 101 less qualified than an IO w/o PAO experience? In what way does this make the PAO worse at their unit level job?

On the other hand, there are distinct advantages to adding IO to the PAO Sr rating requirements. from increasing the pool from which we can draw to making better PAOs.

[RiverAux]

No contradiction.  I was agreeing with your earlier statement that there should be an IO at the remote site under the control of the primary IO.  I was disagreeing with your idea that a LO could do the job.